Mickey Shea's in Lunenburg receives two written warnings

LUNENBURG -- Selectmen on Tuesday night ruled that the owner of Mickey Shea's violated state alcohol laws on two separate occasions at the end of 2013, and issued written warnings for both violations.

According to a police report filed by Officer Jack Hebert, dispatch received a report of an intoxicated male leaving Mickey Shea's in a gray Chevy on Nov. 1. When Hebert arrived at 2:11 a.m., there were eight cars in the parking lot.

He drove around the restaurant and did not locate the Chevy. He went back to the establishment at 2:26 a.m., and the still eight cars were there.

When he went inside, there were three alcoholic drinks on the bar. Four of the 11 people inside were employees, Hebert said in his report.

Herrick showed up 20 minutes late to the first of two hearings Tuesday night, and said he was told the hearings would start at 8 p.m.

"In terms of things sitting on the bar and people at the bar, we were relatively close to capacity," he said. "It's not uncommon for cleanup to begin and empty bottles and cups to be placed on the bar to begin cleaning. To my knowledge, nobody was served after 2 a.m."

Last call is 1:30 a.m., Herrick said.

Officer Hebert testified that it didn't appear anyone in the bar knew he was there until he walked inside. Also, he said, it did not appear that anyone was breaking down equipment or attempting to clean as Herrick testified they were.

Advertisement

During board deliberations after the first hearing, selectmen questioned whether a violation actually occurred -- specifically, if someone was served after closing time.

"I do want to say, moving forward, there were two or three individuals in the bar who should not have been there, but based on what I heard, I am not concerned they were serving alcohol at that point in time," Selectman Paula Bertram said. "The majority of the people on hand were employees. I do not believe a violation occurred.

"

Selectman Dave Matthews agreed with Bertram, but questioned Herrick's actions that night. Herrick was not the manager on duty that night, and Matthews said that even though he was not on duty, it appeared he may have been over-served.

Chairman Tom Alonzo said the only violation that may have occurred was that nonemployees were present after closing time.

On the first hearing, the board determined the establishment did not serve anyone alcohol after closing time, that no employee or manager consumed alcohol on the premises, and that no alcohol was consumed after closing time. However, selectmen did determine there was a technical violation because there were people on the premises after closing time, and whether they were waiting for a ride home from a sober driver does not constitute a nonviolation.

The board voted to send a written warning for the first violation, Bertram voting against.

The second alleged violation occurred a month later. According to a police report filed by Officer Jonathan Broc, on Sunday, Dec. 15, about 2:45 a.m., Broc was notified by another officer that several cars were parked in the Mickey Shea's parking lot.

Broc entered the parking lot and observed eight cars in the lot, three of them running. Broc entered the restaurant, and there were 11 people inside.

He did not observe any alcoholic beverages out or on the bar, nor anyone drinking. There was leftover food on the bar, and Herrick was cleaning while other people were getting their coats on to leave.

Herrick was advised that it was well after closing time, and everyone needed to leave. Herrick was advised he had 10 minutes to get everyone out. Broc said he exited the bar, waited five minutes and went back inside, and everyone was gone.

Herrick said he allowed people to stay past closing while their cars were being cleaned off and warmed up because it had snowed significantly.

Alonzo said the violation was clear.

"It was his decision to be in clear violation of this subsection of our regulations," he said, referring to Herrick.

Selectmen voted 5-0 to issue a written warning because violation had occurred in which nonemployees and employees who were not working were there after closing, which is a violation of law.

Alonzo said he while he voted for the written warning, he said the sanctions should have been harsher.

"I don't know how many violations one establishment has to have before someone does something," Alonzo said.

Welcome to your discussion forum: Sign in with a Disqus account or your social networking account for your comment to be posted immediately, provided it meets the guidelines. (READ HOW.)
Comments made here are the sole responsibility of the person posting them; these comments do not reflect the opinion of The Sentinel and Enterprise. So keep it civil.